I think Lebanon is okay with the invasion: am I crazy?

[nelms]

I love how Muslims will claim that their OWN GOVERNMENTS are not responsible for anything that happens in their own territory..

The President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat was "elected." However, he was "never strong enough to control Hamas." So bombings could always murder Jews, and Arafat "had no control."

Then, Mahmoud Abbas was "elected" as the next President. But he was "too weak and can't control Hamas."

Then, actually the "strong" Hamas was elected. But President Haniyeh is "not in control because Khaled Meshaal in Damascus is more powerful."

Now, we see President Siniora is "not strong enough" even though he was elected. And even though Hizbollah won 14% of the elections, they "aren't part of Lebanon".

Basically, no matter how many Americans or others the Muslim fanatics brutally murder, it is NEVER their own responsibility. It is always the fault of others.

In Nigeria, in Chechnya, in the Philipines, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Spain, in England, in Bali, in India, in New York and Washington.

Again and again we see Islamic fascists brutally murder non-Muslims. In Iraq, we see Muslims butchering OTHER Muslims every day!

Terror apologists will always come up with some lame excuse trying to portray the fanatics as "fighting for their own rights'- but the world is growing wise to the truth of what is happening.

Brilliantly stated.

[Jumbo]

I wanited until there was a bit of a lull in the action here...so, warning: avoid a visit to the "read-only" room by remembering:

Forum rule #11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote huge blocks of text or pictures. If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not necessarily the entire post. It wastes space on the database and unnecessarily extends and clutters threads.

hermagg had a beauty example

And, this is especially dumb when a one-line response is all that's being added to a thread.

That last is not aimed at you, nelms, it just seems to be a common thing to do for some reason, and I've been including that comment with these warnings here and the stadium. The post you quoted entirely isn't all that long, but you could just have used the guys name instead .

Thenk yew.

[herrmag]

hermagg had a beauty example

:adoration Hey, just doing my part to provide examples of how NOT to use the quote function. :halo:

Btw, why does everyone put 2 "g's" and only 1 "r" when spelling my handle? I'm just curious, because people do this ALL the time (not just you Jumbo ).

[Jumbo]

:adoration Hey, just doing my part to provide examples of how NOT to use the quote function. :halo:

Btw, why does everyone put 2 "g's" and only 1 "r" when spelling my handle? I'm just curious, because people do this ALL the time (not just you Jumbo ).

Well, I can't speak for other dotards, but I'll claim my own dumblexia and make sure I never make the mistake again.

Now, back to the topic...

[The Sisko]

Brilliantly stated.

...except that it leaves out the part about Lebanon being controlled by Syria since the end of their civil war. That would be the same Syria that backs Hezbollah. Now, Syria has been out of Lebanon for how long now? I don't remember off the top of my head but it's only been a matter of months. Sorry, but the Lebanese just haven't had the opportunity to build anything like the military required to reign in Hezbollah.

Secondly, I will simply reiterate my point that I sincerely doubt that anyone in Lebanon, given what they experienced during their war years, would be willing to go through that again to disarm Hezbollah.

[The Sisko]

Herrmag, I admit that I exagerated your comments in order to make a point, not so much about you in particular but about the general sentiment on the board. I hope you weren't offended.

Beyond the wide ranging nature of the assault, Israel's response is disproportionate because Hezbollah's raid wasn't a terrorist attack. Staging a cross border raid against a country that you've declared war against to attack a purely military target is a military strike...period. Furthermore, Nasrallah told the Israelis months before doing it that he was going to take IDF hostages. The IDF soldiers simply should have been more alert and should not have underestimated their enemy.

However, the rocket attacks against civilians is a different matter altogether and I will freely admit that's terrorism any day and every day. Even so, such a wide reaching, collectively punishing response on the part of the Israelis still isn't justified.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect that Israel cannot or will not retaliate or stage pre-emptive strikes against military targets, after all they're in the business of self preservation. Nor do I think the Israelis should be treating them with kid gloves in doing so. Combat is combat. However, there are rules for combat and I think the Israelis have overstepped the boundary line.

[dreamingwolf]

yusuf you need to figure out if you want your cake or if you want to eat it. If it wasnt a terrorist attack then it was an act of war by lebanon, and Israels response is not only proportionate but demonstrating considerable restraint and should be comended by all.

[AlexRS]

Yusuf06,

When you get a chance:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2727500&postcount=70

[The Sisko]

I know it's probably hard for you to comprehend DW. However, the world isn't always black and white. No matter that it makes things easy for you to understand, it's not always Arab=bad Jew=good. Sorry that the world is so complicated for you.

Given this fact of life, I evaluate things as I see them. I have a hard time calling an attack against a military target terrorism...even if it's our troops were talking about. Likewise, intentionally killing civilians or targeting structures that serve the primary purpose of supporting a population is wrong, no matter which side it comes from. Again, there are limits to what is permissible in war.

[AlexRS]

it's not always Arab=bad Jew=good.

If we a) remove good/bad value judgements and speak in terms of statistics... what do you think is a % of Jews that would kill an American if given a chance, compared to such % for Arabs?

targeting structures that serve the primary purpose of supporting a population is wrong, no matter which side it comes from. Again, there are limits to what is permissible in war.

What if it is a part of a military strategy? Israel's job is to protect Israelis. Keeping civilian population in there would allow Hizbollah to inflict great casualties on the Israeli army. You gonna blame Israel for not marching into traps specifically set up by Hizbollah??

We already talked about strategies employed by Islamic terrorists... using civilians as human shields and all that... One could argue Israel is actually minimizing civilian casualties by driving civilians out of S. Lebanon before invading...

[Larry]

Given this fact of life, I evaluate things as I see them. I have a hard time calling an attack against a military target terrorism...even if it's our troops were talking about. Likewise, intentionally killing civilians or targeting structures that serve the primary purpose of supporting a population is wrong, no matter which side it comes from. Again, there are limits to what is permissible in war.

Granting, you do have a point. It's tough to drag out the "they're targeting civilians" line when it comes to the kidnappings. (Or the 9/11 plane into the Pentagon.)

OTOH, attacking a military outpost for the purpose of capturing an "enemy" soldier and then demanding ransom for him isn't exactly "war", either.

[AlexRS]

Attack against civilians - act of terrorism

Attack against a military target by another state - act of war

Attack against a military target by a terrorist organization - errr no term for that one... I guess those are okay?

[The Sisko]

Alex, I can't believe you actually believe that the Israelis only attacked military targets. This revisionist history is sad. Try checking here (quote below).

"Jabotinsky died in 1940, but his teachings have become the new mainstream of Israeli society. During the struggle for Palestine between the Great wars the Right’s militia, Irgun and its terrorist wing, the Stern Gang, became something of an embarrassment to the mainstream of the Mapai because of their advocacy of terrorism against Palestinians as an instrument of liberation. After 1948 they formed an electoral party Herut, which became the contemporary Likud Party. The Mapai distanced itself from the right on domestic grounds but also because it recoiled at the inconvenient language that the followers of Jabotinsky used. Labor had a longer term strategy to achieve some of the same goals. David Ben Gurion himself, Moshe Sharrett and other leaders of the party were no less contemptuous of the Palestinians and had no plan to grant them full citizenship. But during the 1948 war and in the early days of Israel, they were somewhat constrained by the need to win political and economic aid from key European states such as the Soviet Union, France, Britain and the United States whose support, in the immediate post-war period, had been shaky at best."

Lehi

"As a group that never had over a hundred members, Lehi relied on audacious but small-scale operations to bring their message home, as such they described themselves as a terrorist group and adopted the tactics of groups such as the IRA, who had successfully used guerrilla warfare to force the British out of the Southern Republic of Ireland back in the 1920s. To this end, Lehi conducted small-scale operations such as assassinations of British soldiers and police officers and, on occasion, Jewish "collaborators". Another strategy, (1947) was to send bombs in the mail to many British politicians. Other actions included sabotaging infrastructure targets: bridges, railroads, and oil refineries. Lehi financed their operations from private donations, extortion, and bank robbery."

Hmmm...that sounds an awful lot like Al-Queda to me. Though not quite as bad since they tended to concentrate on the British, Irgun was also known for attacks on Arabs as well. One of the worst terrorist incidents attributed to them was the massacre at Deir Yassin

To answer the rest of your questions, I would estimate the chances at 80% that Hezbollah survives (with some miltary capability) this operation as it currently is being carried out.

I understand your point about not attacking an enemy's strong point. That makes tactical sense. However I think that Hezbollah has prepared more for a large scale ground war as in the last Israeli occupation rather than infiltration by smaller highly trained and motivated commando teams. Israel has a long history of success with such teams and probably could have achieved a lot more by pursuing such an operation at some time of their own choosing so as to catch Hezbollah off guard.

Finally with regard to your comments about them clearing S. Lebanon of civilians, that essentially amounts to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, it's kind of difficult to evacuate a population when you're blowing them up on the way out and when you've destroyed the great majority of the roads and bridges that they would use to leave the area. Such actions result in making civilians hunker down, not leave the area.

[NoCalMike]

People have got to get over the ficticious notion that just because you don't feel Israel should have a free pass to blow up whatever the hell they want to, means you are anti-jew or an anti-semite. The world is not black and white.

[The Sisko]

Thanks NoCal.

[dreamingwolf]

I know it's probably hard for you to comprehend DW.

your right it is hard for me to comprehend your position cause I lack your sympathy for terrorists.

[AlexRS]

To answer the rest of your questions, I would estimate the chances at 80% that Hezbollah survives (with some miltary capability) this operation as it currently is being carried out.

hmm I would say there is about 99.9% chance that Hizbollah will survive with some military capability, but at the same time I would say there is a very small chance they will retain any capability to attack Israel. What do you think?

I understand your point about not attacking an enemy's strong point. That makes tactical sense. However I think that Hezbollah has prepared more for a large scale ground war as in the last Israeli occupation rather than infiltration by smaller highly trained and motivated commando teams.

I disagree with this... I have a strong impression Hizbollah has actually prepared to repel small incursions by commando units. Israel actually sent several of such units initially, and they got into trouble... some where shot down by snipers, etc.

I think Hizbollah is prepared for:

1) small incursions - using snipers, knowledge of terrain, specially designed bunkers, trap doors, etc.

2) large occupation force - using civilian population as shields, relying on public support for operations, etc.

They were VERY prepared for both of these... they got ready, and they initiated the conflict. They would have inflicted great casualties on Irsraeli army - which was their objective.

6 years of preparation by Hizbollah did not leave Israel many strategically viable alternatives. I do not blame Israel for refusing to march into a trap.

Yes it does suck for Lebanese civilians that Israel does not want to sacrifice hundreds of soldiers for their sake.

Israel has a long history of success with such teams and probably could have achieved a lot more by pursuing such an operation at some time of their own choosing so as to catch Hezbollah off guard.

Hizbollah captures 2 soldiers, expects retaliation... Israel should wait to catch them offguard??? For how long, exactly???

Finally with regard to your comments about them clearing S. Lebanon of civilians, that essentially amounts to ethnic cleansing.

There are many definitions for ethnic clensing... all of them specify actions that attempt to displace a population PERMANENTLY.

[AlexRS]

People have got to get over the ficticious notion that just because you don't feel Israel should have a free pass to blow up whatever the hell they want to, means you are anti-jew or an anti-semite. The world is not black and white.

That's an excellent point. Indeed many people are inclined to view the world in black and white terms... For example, they may see a few dead civilians and automatically conclude whoever killed them was in the wrong. I agree, we have to try and look at all sides of the issue.

[The Sisko]

Why can't you answer the question???

Don't try to over analyze the analogy with your perverted sense of history. Israel did not evict one person when it was re-established. It did not steal or take one inch of land that was not purchased for from these same Muslim governments that are trying to "evict" them now.

Stop being such a tool and a media puppet about this situation. Or, is that your Muslim or anti-sematic, and you find this personal? Answer the question about my original post!!!

I'll now parapharase you Taylor36 (both for your own benefit and AbleDanger as well) Why can't you respond??? Answer the question about my original post!!! We're still waiting for the facts to support your points guys.

However, this doesn't only apply to these two. I've tried to answer as many of your questions as possible. I'd love to see some others jump in and respond to some of the things I've asked.